If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by praxis178

Maybe, but really unless these sources are obviously and CLEARLY declared, then his position of trust in the beek community in regards to these topics can easily be read as a serious conflict of interest. Which is a serious worry if he is being held up as the "gold standard" for us to get our info from.

Why do people make innuendo when they don't know, as in this case?

It's also bad taste to imply the man holds himself up as the "gold standard". That accusation could be levelled at anyone who does and publishes research, and is an unfair, meaningless accusation.

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by wildbranch2007

... beekeeper money ...

You mean Bayer money? My understanding was that we were talking about Randy's Oliver support by Bayer Corporation. So, you feel that Bayer money is better than Australian government money? I missed something AGAIN...

Re: Neonic facts

The funding is beside the point. It is the integrity of the researcher which matters.
If anyone slurring Randy Oliver has some evidence that he has manipulated results in some way due to an association with Bayer then put it on the table.
Otherwise, just leave out the innuendo.
Innuendo and conspiracy theory is the sure sign of someone with no real argument.

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by cerezha

You mean Bayer money? My understanding was that we were talking about Randy's Oliver support by Bayer Corporation. So, you feel that Bayer money is better than Australian government money? I missed something AGAIN...

He is saying that most of RO's suppot comes from average ;beekeepers...... not GOV or Bayer....

“Don’t tell me how educated you are, tell me how much you have travelled.” - The Quran

Re: Neonic facts

Probably not even worth defending Randy, this last page or so of posts on the matter was started by a fact, Bayer paid him for some work, and an insinuation, being that's made him twist his work. Seems like those who want to jump on board will not be persuaded otherwise. Evidence is not required.

I've seen "research" that's set up within certain parameters to try to prove the desired result. Don't see it in Randy's work.

Research designed to give a certain result is usually fairly easy to expose if the studies are looked at properly.

So you guys go. As stated if someone has evidence of wrongdoing put it on the table. If you cannot find any, it's a fair assumption there isn't any.

Re: Neonic facts

I’m firmly convinced that those who presume that others are easily corrupted are actually painting a portrait of themselves. They believe that everyone else shares their ethics.
I believe I need to find the ignore feature here.

Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by praxis178

Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.

I find it hard to believe industry is not supporting your government and most likely controlling it in some way.
I don't blame neonic's as the sole cause of bee survival. I blame monoculture that creates the demand for neonic's which is only one item that is hurting the planet.

Re: Neonic facts

Happy to, I get 100% from the Australian government as student support. Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.

Your analysis of the source of your financial support is fatally flawed. Where do you think the government gets the money they fund you with? Taxes?? You bet!

Divided into three business groups, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer CropScience and Bayer MaterialScience, Bayer employs around 1000 people in Australia and New Zealand, and 111,800 people worldwide. In 2012 Bayer generated A$891 million (NZ$1144 million) in revenue in Australia and New Zealand.

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

It's a rare thing Ace, but on this point I agree with you I've felt that for a long time.

I also agree totally with that point. Bees need a wide and varied pollen source to get all the amino acids they need.
Different pollens have different combinations of amino acids.
Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition.
The roundup ready form of agriculture is maybe what needs examination rather than the neonicotinoids.
There have been proposals in Europe about obliging farmers to intercrop forage strips of bee friendly plants at the margins to mitigate the negative effect of monoculture on bees and other pollinators.
A lot of the problems associated with modern agriculture actually have workable solutions which achieve a compromise between the needs of the food producers and the needs of the pollinators -other than calling for a ban and ignoring the consequences.

Re: Neonic facts

Originally Posted by cg3

Now the trick is to convince farmers they need to make less money.

Who are these farmers? When I was a kid they worked hard and did fairly well. Today they are gone, can't make ends meet or they turned their real estate into developments and walked away with a bundle. I think an independent framer has a much better chance of making it now and in the future because more people see the benefits of organic sustainability. If you are a corporation running your farm as a factory it doesn't give me the picture of a farmer. I know, I am old.

Re: Neonic facts

Brian: I am living in the heart of the farm belt. What is happening mirrors what has happened in our economy at large. Bigger farms and fewer farmers. The most efficient that make best use of "modern" farming practices that maximize yields are the ones with the capital to purchase more farm land and on and on it goes. Unfortunately the old farming practices are just becoming a distant memory. Many farmers used to eke out a living on a quarter section of land, now that ground may bring a million and a half dollars. When the old farmer is gone its not surprising what the majority of the heirs choose to do with the land.

"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

Re: Neonic facts

Farms will only get larger. In 1965, when I first began to date the "farmer's daughter", there were close to 100 farm families, today there are 3. Of course, there are also numerous 'Vertical Farming" arrangements, but it's hard to call these farms... IMHO. For example... my wife's nephew raises 500000 chickens at a time in numerous industrial quality buidings.. the main job seems to be picking up dead chickens and monitoring environmental quality guages.... much more like industry work than old time farming. Hogs, chickens, turkeys, are all done this way... vertical farming. I don't have a solution, people who suggest many small organic farms are the solution really do not know the problem.

“Don’t tell me how educated you are, tell me how much you have travelled.” - The Quran

Re: Neonic facts

So you call Randy Oliver into question. And you don't even have the courage to do it clearly and distinctly. I challenge on that and now invite you to support that claim in detail tell us exactly what Randy has ever said that indicates his work is wrong suspect or unreliable. I say it is obvious that all apply liberally to your claim.

Re: Neonic facts

Re: Neonic facts

Because of the way the land lays here there are few flat fields bigger than 10 acres or so. So there is not much appeal to big ag to buy up land. We still have quite a few family farms. But the only common crop that will make a reliable profit is corn. And these guys love their "Monster (Monsanto) corn".

Re: Neonic facts

Bees need a wide and varied pollen source to get all the amino acids they need.
Different pollens have different combinations of amino acids.
Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition.
The roundup ready form of agriculture is maybe what needs examination rather than the neonicotinoids. -jonathan

Those comments are worth repeating. That one line, "Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition," is a variant on what I keep repeating in my head when I'm scouting new yard locations.

More than that, even if you find two or three crops, it's close enough to a monoculture to have the same sort of influence on bees.

I don't know if anyone else has caught it, but studies have been posted here in this thread, too, that state clearly that neonicotinoids are detectable in pollen in trace amounts if the neonicotinoids are present. Hardly the "doing damage but cannot be physically detected" phenomenon that has been asserted in some claims.